In re C.C. CA1/4
A145797
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 14, 2016Background
- Juvenile (C.C.) was declared a ward (May 8, 2014) and placed on in‑home probation with a condition prohibiting alcohol use.
- On June 13, 2015, police responded to a 911 report of a fight involving several Hispanic males (red/white clothing) and one person with a gun in the 600 block of Railroad.
- Officer Blake located four–five males four blocks away, turned to stop them, and observed some enter a house at 864 Commercial; one left in a parked car.
- Officers approached the house with guns drawn, ordered occupants outside for officer safety; 7–9 people came out. C.C. emerged wearing a white T‑shirt and black jeans; officers noted bloodshot eyes, unsteady stance, and odor of alcohol. He admitted “I’ve just been sippin” and was taken for testing.
- C.C. moved to suppress evidence, arguing the warrantless entry/detention lacked reasonable suspicion and exigent circumstances; the juvenile court denied the motion, C.C. admitted the probation violation, and the court imposed stricter custodial/monitoring sanctions. C.C. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule in §777 juvenile probation hearings | Exclusion not required in probation revocation‑type proceedings; evidence admissible | Evidence obtained via illegal search/seizure should be excluded under Fourth Amendment | Court: Federal exclusionary rule generally not applied to probation revocation/§777 hearings; evidence admissible unless police conduct shocks the conscience |
| Reasonable suspicion to detain/order occupants out based on anonymous 911 dispatch and clothing description | Officers had articulable suspicion: report of fight with gun, matching clothing, recent gang activity, subjects fleeing—justified broader perimeter stop and ordering occupants out for safety | Information was too general, remote in time/place; ordering occupants out and entering house lacked reasonable suspicion and exigent circumstances | Court: Facts supported officers’ safety‑based encounter and ordering occupants out; suppression motion denied |
| Whether ordering out/handcuffing constituted de facto arrest and if probable cause existed | Even if seizure, circumstances and observations (appearance, odor, admission) supported detention/arrest for alcohol violation | The show of force and restraints made it a de facto arrest without probable cause | Court: No arguable reversible error; record provides lawful basis for detention/handling in probation context (and exclusion not required) |
| Use of anonymous/dispatcher information (Harvey‑Madden rule) | Prosecutor relied properly on dispatcher relay of 911 information | Defense could challenge reliability of anonymous tip | Court: Defense did not object to Harvey‑Madden use; no reversible error identified |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (Cal. 1979) (requires appellate counsel to file an opening brief and court to independently review record when counsel finds no arguable issues)
- People v. Kelly, 40 Cal.4th 106 (Cal. 2006) (section 1538.5 procedure and state vs. federal exclusionary analysis)
- People v. Lazlo, 206 Cal.App.4th 1063 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (evidence obtained in Fourth Amendment violation may still be admissible in probation revocation unless conduct shocks the conscience)
- In re D.J., 185 Cal.App.4th 278 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (§777 juvenile hearings are analogous to adult probation revocation proceedings)
- People v. Harrison, 199 Cal.App.3d 803 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (federal law does not require application of exclusionary rule to probation revocation hearings)
- People v. Nixon, 131 Cal.App.3d 687 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (same principle regarding exclusionary rule in revocation proceedings)
- People v. Romeo, 240 Cal.App.4th 931 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (discusses use of anonymous/dispatcher‑relayed tips under the Harvey‑Madden rule)
Disposition: Juvenile court’s July 13, 2015 dispositional order affirmed.